Search

Purpose: Preclinical studies support the JAK2–STAT3 signaling pathway as a key driver in CD44+ CD24− "stem-cell-like" breast cancer cells. Ruxolitinib is an orally bioavailable JAK1/2 inhibitor. We aimed to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ruxolitinib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: Eligible patients had HER2-negative MBC and had received ≤ 3 chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease. Patients received oral ruxolitinib (10–25 mg bid) in a 3 + 3 dose escalation design in combination with weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 in a 3-week cycle. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the RP2D. Results: Nineteen patients received protocol therapy (mean age 52 years). Eight (42%) had triple-negative breast cancer and 11 (58%) had hormone receptor-positive disease; 12 (63%) had visceral disease. Ten (53%) patients had not received prior treatment for advanced disease. Patients received a median number of 5 cycles of combination therapy (range 1–12) and five patients continued single-agent ruxolitinib. The MTD of ruxolitinib was 25 mg bid when combined with paclitaxel, and the RP2D for the combination was 15 mg bid. Thirteen (68%) patients required dose reductions or holds. Most frequent toxicities reported of any grade were neutropenia (50%) and anemia (33%). There were no grade 4/5 toxicities attributed to study drug. Four (21%) patients had PR, 12 (63%) had SD and three (16%) had PD as their best response. Conclusion: The combination of ruxolitinib and weekly paclitaxel was well tolerated with evidence of clinical activity. Further analysis of this combination is ongoing (NCT02041429). Trial registration: NCT02041429. Date of registration: January 22, 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite a growing number of clinical trials and supportive care programs for cancer survivors, recruitment of patients for these opportunities during the survivorship phase of care is challenging. We piloted a novel process to systematically educate patients about available research studies and supportive care programs as part of a survivorship care visit. Between 3/2015 and 8/2015, patients seen in the Adult Survivorship Program who had not previously received a treatment summary and survivorship care plan (TS/SCP) were provided with one accompanied by a list of survivorship research studies and care programs tailored to their diagnosis. Survivorship providers discussed the opportunities and recorded whether the patient was interested in relevant studies and placed referrals to study staff. Following the visit, we tracked study enrollment and surveyed patients about their experience. Fifty of 56 (89%) pilot participants completed the survey. Almost all (98%) reported that the TS/SCP visit and document helped with knowledge of research opportunities and supportive care interventions. Following receipt of the TS/SCP, 44% were interested in at least one study and in further follow-up with research staff. Of the 30 survivors eligible for at least one study, 6 (20%) have enrolled in at least one study to date. This pilot program demonstrates that the systematic sharing of available clinical studies and supportive care programming as part of a survivorship care plan visit is feasible and well received by cancer survivors and may facilitate and enhance accrual to clinical trials in the survivorship phase of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the multidisciplinary care model, breast imagers frequently provide second-opinion reviews of imaging studies performed at outside institutions. However, the need for additional imaging and timeliness of obtaining these studies has yet to be established. We sought to evaluate the frequency of additional imaging orders by breast surgeons and to evaluate the impact of this supplementary imaging on timeliness of surgery. Methods: We identified 2489 consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent first definitive surgery (FDS) at our comprehensive cancer center between 2011 and 2013. The number of breast-specific imaging studies performed for each patient between initial consultation and FDS was obtained. χ tests were used to quantify the proportion of patients undergoing additional imaging by surgeon. Interval time between initial consultation and additional imaging and/or biopsy was calculated. The delay of additional imaging on time to FDS was assessed by t test. Results: Of 2489 patients, 615 (24.7 %) had at least one additional breast-specific imaging study performed between initial consultation and FDS, with 222 patients undergoing additional biopsies (8.9 %). The proportion of patients receiving imaging tests by breast surgeon ranged from 15 to 39 % ( p < 0.0001). Patients receiving additional imaging had statistically longer wait times to FDS for BCT (21.4-28.5 days, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Substantial variability exists in the utilization of additional breast-specific imaging and in the timeliness of obtaining these tests among breast surgeons. Further research is warranted to assess the sources and impact of this variation on patient care, cost, and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients referred to comprehensive cancer centers arrive with clinical data requiring review. Radiology consultation for second opinions often generates additional imaging requests; however, the impact of this service on breast cancer management remains unclear. We sought to identify the incidence of additional imaging requests and the effect additional imaging has on patients' ultimate surgical management. Methods: Between November 2013 and March 2014, 153 consecutive patients with breast cancer received second opinion imaging reviews and definitive surgery at our cancer center. We identified the number of additional imaging requests, the number of fulfilled requests, the modality of additional imaging completed, the number of biopsies performed, and the number of patients whose management was altered due to additional imaging results. Results: Of 153 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 98.9 % were female; 23.5 % (36) had in situ carcinoma (35 DCIS/1 LCIS), and 76.5 % (117) had invasive carcinoma. Additional imaging was suggested for 47.7 % (73/153) of patients. After multidisciplinary consultation, 65.8 % (48/73) of patients underwent additional imaging. Imaging review resulted in biopsy in 43.7 % (21/48) of patients and ultimately altered preliminary treatment plans in 37.5 % (18/48) of patients (Fig. 1). Changes in management included: conversion to mastectomy or breast conservation, neoadjuvant therapy, additional wire placement, and need for contralateral breast surgery.[Figure not available: see fulltext.] Conclusions: Our analysis of second opinion imaging consultation demonstrates the significant value that this service has on breast cancer management. Overall, 11.7 % (18/153) of patients who underwent breast surgery had management changes as a consequence of radiologic imaging review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies have examined care processes within providers' and institutions' control that expedite or delay care. The authors investigated the timeliness of breast cancer care at a comprehensive cancer center, focusing on factors influencing the time from initial consultation to first definitive surgery (FDS). The care of 1,461 women with breast cancer who underwent surgery at Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center from 2011 to 2013 was studied. The interval between consultation and FDS was calculated to identify variation in timeliness of care based on procedure, provider, and patients' sociodemographic characteristics. Targets of 14 days for lumpectomy and mastectomy and 28 days from mastectomy with immediate reconstruction were set and used to define delay. Mean days between consultation and FDS was 21.6 (range 1-175, sd 15.8) for lumpectomy, 36.7 (5-230, 29.1) for mastectomy, and 37.5 (7-111, 16) for mastectomy with reconstruction. Patients under 40 were less likely to be delayed (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.33-0.94, p = 0.03). Patients undergoing mastectomy alone (OR = 2.64, 95 % CI = 1.80-3.89, p < 0.0001) and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (OR = 1.34 95 % CI = 1.00-1.79, p = 0.05) were more likely to be delayed when compared to lumpectomy. Substantial variation in surgical timeliness was identified. This study provides insight into targets for improvement including better coordination with plastic surgery and streamlining pre-operative testing. Cancer centers may consider investing in efforts to measure and improve the timeliness of cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Dose-limiting neuropathy is a major adverse event associated with most of the microtubule-stabilizing agent-based chemotherapy regimens. Ixabepilone, a semisynthetic analogue of the natural epothilone B, has activity against a wide range of tumor types. Peripheral neuropathy (PN), associated with ixabepilone treatment, is usually mild to moderate, predominantly sensory and cumulative. Preclinical studies demonstrate that ixabepilone and taxanes produce a similar neurotoxicity profile. Methods: We searched databases of phase II/III clinical trials involving patients receiving ixabepilone as a monotherapy or in combination with capecitabine for incidences of neuropathy. Potential risk factors for grade 3/4 PN were identified by a Cox regression analysis on a dataset of 1,540 patients with different tumor types across multiple studies. Results: Rates for incidence of ixabepilone-induced severe PN (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3/4) ranged from 1% in early untreated breast cancer up to 24% in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer; grade 4 PN was rare (≤1%). Common symptoms included numbness, paresthesias, and sometimes dysesthesias. Cox regression analysis identified only preexisting neuropathy as a risk factor for increased ixabepilone-associated PN. The management of PN has been primarily through dose adjustments (dose delays and/or dose reduction). Patients had resolution of their neuropathy within a median time of 5 to 6 weeks. Conclusions: PN is a dose-limiting toxicity associated with ixabepilone treatment, is reversible in most patients, and can be managed with dose reduction and delays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin has activity in both breast and ovarian cancer. Preclinical data noted that ZD1839 acts synergistically with chemotherapy. Given the lack of cross-resistance between these two agents, a phase I trial was initiated examining the safety and efficacy of the combination of liposomal doxorubicin and ZD1839 in patients with recurrent gynecologic or metastatic breast cancer. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first two cycles of treatment. Escalating doses of liposomal doxorubicin were administered every 4 weeks with ZD1839. Pharmacokinetic analysis and correlative studies were performed. Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study: six in each cohort. One DLT (febrile neutropenia) was observed in cohort 2. Dose level 3 was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and an additional ten patients were accrued. Serious adverse events (SAEs) included one patient with mental status changes believed secondary to disease progression and two central nervous system (CNS) bleeds believed to be unrelated to the combination of study agents. Toxicities were generally mild except for skin and gastrointestinal toxicity. No cardiac toxicity was observed. The best response to therapy included four partial responses and 20 patients with stable disease. Liposomal doxorubicin with ZD1839 is an active regimen but is associated with increased skin toxicity in patients with advanced breast and gynecologic cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A phase I study of the antitumor antibiotic 7-cyanoquinocarcinol, DX-52-1, was conducted in patients with refractory solid malignancies. This study sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose and principal toxicities of this agent and to characterize its pharmacokinetic behavior. Methods: Patients were required to have adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic function. DX-52-1 was administered by i.v. continuous infusion over a 6-h period each week for four consecutive weeks followed by a 2-week rest period, which constituted one cycle of treatment. Results: Initial dose levels were 3, 6, and 10 mg/m2. An intermediate dose level of 8 mg/m2 was added after acceptable toxicity was observed at the 6 mg/m2 dose level, but dose-limiting toxicities, including life-threatening ones, were seen at the 10 mg/m2 dose level in all three patients. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was subsequently determined to be 6 mg/m2. Because a clear pattern of toxicities was not initially evident, a larger than usual number of additional patients (16) were enrolled at the MTD to better distinguish toxicities due to the study drug from those secondary to the patients' underlying malignancies. Even at the MTD, the drug was poorly tolerated, with gastrointestinal toxicities (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and increased liver function tests) predominating and dose-limiting. Pharmacokinetic studies revealed that the mean maximum plasma concentration of DX-52-1 in patients evaluated at the MTD (138.8±59.3 ng/ml, n=19) was considerably lower than the concentrations required for cytostatic or cytotoxic activity against sensitive human tumor cell lines in vitro. Further, the weekly dose intensity of the most efficacious treatment schedule identified during in vivo antitumor efficacy studies was 60 times greater than the 6 mg/m2 weekly dose tolerated by cancer patients. None of the 33 patients participating in this study, including the 22 patients evaluated at the MTD, had any response to treatment. Conclusion: Given the poor tolerability, the inability to achieve drug levels necessary to inhibit in vitro or in vivo tumor growth, and the lack of any responses in our study, DX-52-1, as given by this schedule, does not appear to warrant further investigation in phase II studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last 2–3 years have brought significant changes to both the adjuvant and palliative treatment of breast cancer. The addition of paclitaxel to the adjuvant setting has brought the largest increase in benefit from adjuvant therapy since the initial CMF trials in the 1970s. Changes in the schedule of administration of the taxanes in the palliative setting have substantially diminished the toxicity without an apparent compromise in the efficacy of these important agents. The combination of chemotherapy and Herceptin in the first line treatment of metastatic breast cancer has resulted in enhancement of survival of women with advanced disease. In only a few short years, the future for women diagnosed with breast cancer has come to look substantially brighter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A preliminary analysis of our double high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue (HD-SCR) clinical trial for breast cancer, and preclinical cross-resistant studies, suggested that melphalan (M) adversely affected response to subsequent chemotherapy, i.e., that the sequence of alkylating agents (AAs) might affect response. We, therefore, constructed and examined preclinical models to determine whether prior exposure to M, in fact, adversely affected response to other therapy.Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine whether the sequence of AAs, specifically the prior use of M, adversely affected response to subsequent treatment.Methods: The methods employed were the following: (1) Human tumor cell lines rendered resistant by in vitro sequential exposure to five different AAs were developed. The resistant cell lines were examined for cross-resistance to alkylating and other agents. (2) In vivo studies in the p388 mouse leukemia for resistance and cross-resistance among the AAs. (3) In vivo studies of the effect of sequence of AAs on response in mice bearing EMT6 breast cancer. (4) The double transplant model was developed in the mouse and the sequence of high-dose AAs was studied. (5) Biochemical and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) studies of the various resistant tumor cell lines.Results: (1) The in vitro human tumor cells resistant to M were cross-resistant in 57% of tests to other AAs. In contrast, resistance for other AAs crossed to other agents in only 10 to 20% of tests. (2) The in vivo studies of p388 indicated that resistance to M commonly crossed to other AAs and many non-AAs. (3) The results for the mouse breast cancer (EMT6) studies of the sequence of AAs again indicated that M employed first markedly reduced responsiveness to subsequent treatment, particularly with AAs. (4) The double transplant model: again, M first markedly reduced response to other agents. (5) The in vitro resistant human tumor cell lines, particularly the breast cancer cell line MCF7, were found to contain high concentrations of glutathione S1 transferase gamma, which is consistent with that mechanism being responsible for resistance.Conclusion: The sequence of alkylating agent treatment may substantially influence response. Melphalan, particularly, produces resistance that commonly crosses to the other AAs. Mechanistic studies indicate significant changes in glutathione S1 transferase, a known mechanism for broadly based resistance to AAs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]